If entropy always increases then why arent we still a soup of quarks

>>8295301
Fun fact: we might live in a universe with continuously decreasing entropy

>>8295301
Because the universe cooled off too fast.

>>8295301
Because the universe is getting bigguh faster than it makes entropy nigguh

>>8295314
Correct,
The amount of entropy per area decreases while the amount of entropy in the entire system still increases

File: 1359233171041.jpg (111KB, 474x595px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 474x595px

short answer - you understand the definition of entropy incorrectly.

we ARE still a soup of quarks

once you realize this it will set u free

>>8295329
nonsense
>sort a deck of cards
>isolate it, put it in a box on a spring
>organize a worldwide card games conference to decide that the order is now Queen-Jack-King instead of Jack-Queen-King
>deck of card isn't sorted anymore
>entropy increases
>volume of the box increases
>then call back the conference
>restore the previous order
>volume of the box decreases
You've created a FREE mechanical engine.

Because gravity

gravity is literally magic

>>8295301
Localize spontaneous structures like atoms, stars, orangutans, etc aren't a representative of the general quark cloud we're apart of.

>>8295301
You're forgetting the most crucial part my friend.

Entropy always increases in a closed system.

You, me, the earth, the galaxy, are all not closed systems. You could make the argument about the universe and you'd be right (potentially, we dont really know that much about the universe) but there is so much matter and energy in the verse that it will take an inconceivable amount of time to devolve into a soup.

Because quarks being bound in potential energy wells IS an increase in entropy.

>>8295436
>>8295414
Wrong.

Think about it like this. Take two stars with random velocities in space, separated by large distances. Move them closer to each other. Did entropy decrease or increase?

>>8295459
It increased, because you weren't 100% efficient with the energy it took to move them.

They are correct.

>>8295459
I would argue that if their relative velocities are truly random, it would be impossible for an outside observer to know if they are actually closer or not from one moment to the next.

>>8295459
This is not a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics doesnt apply anyways..

>>8295486
>>8295491
>>8295501
So you're implying the expansion of space (the stars moving apart) is actually decreasing entropy? The opposite is true. Also the expansion of space is not subject to concepts of "efficient"

>>8295301
space is spooky. nigga

>>8295517
It's decreasing entropy per unit of volume
>the expansion of space (the stars moving apart)
ahahahah

>>8295301

disorder is more probable than order

however given a large enough sample size, order (a gaussian distribution) will emerge (central limit theorum)

>>8295310
How so?

File: 213.jpg (90KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x375px

>>8295369
>thinks this is entropy

There are many different ways something could end up disordered. Why is any single way more or less random or "entropic" than another?

Because we (the universe as a whole) are at a more stable state now than we were as a soup of quarks and energy in the beginning of the universe

>>8296727
Define disorder, what if something that looks like a random jumble of matter to human eyes is actually a functioning machine.

>>8296779
It was a jest, directed at people like >>8296727 who unironically think what people mean when they talk about "order" for entropy is a specific distribution.

>>8296779
Who let the Poles into Sweden?

File: 200w.gif (592KB, 200x113px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 200x113px

>>8295322
Ohhhhh fuuuuuuuu-

>>8296804
Disorder is potential to change to different states.

>>8295301
>why arent we still a soup of quarks
who says we aren't?

>>8295301
>If entropy always increases
it doesnt, its conserved.

>>8296919
>what is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Entropy can either be conserved, OR increased. Because of this, there is a net increase in any sufficiently complex system over time.

File: pepe_328.png (78KB, 396x385px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 396x385px

>>8296919
If you're gonna shitpost at least put more effort in it than that.

>>8295414
Its only a theory

>>8296950
(a gauss)

>>8295517
Read the post I replied to.
Op suggested that physically moving two stars together would decrease entropy in that two star system.
It wouldn't.

>>8296848
Good definition, I get that we get our energy from the sun so while entropy can be reversed locally it can't be reversed as a whole, but how do you know what state it will turn into?

For all you know it could be forged into a diamond or some other long lasting substance and last until the great rip or something.

>>8296807

my nigga everything conforms to a distribution if it can be modelled

>>8297006
It's not reversed locally though.
The energy from the sun used to produce the carbon that the diamond turns into is used with around .1% efficiency.

>>8295301

Man, I feel like a soup of quarks. I should probably call my Physician.

>>8297234
>when you realize physicians don't have anything to do with physics

>>8297113
if the sun's energy were distributed randomly you'd just get some warm rocks

warm rocks are more random than some slightly cooler rocks plus a diamond

>>8297927
Entropy has never meant random.
It's literally defined as the number of microstates available to a macro state.

>>8297259
> when you realize physicists don't have anything to do with physic